Welcome to Personal Tutor, where we discuss how to maximize our opportunities for player education without coaching them. Our goal is to transcend the basic answer to create an informative answer that the player will really remember. You may even find this process helps you come to a better understanding of rules and policy yourself.

The Scenario:
Ajvar and Nutella are playing a game during a PTQ. Nutella calls you over to the table.
"So, I've got this Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver, and I put Desecration Demon into play with it last turn. Ajvar just played a Banisher Priest, and he targeted Desecration Demon with the ability. If I kill the Priest, does the Demon come back under my control or Ajvar's?”

This month's scenario comes to us from Travis Coffman, and you may notice there is no “Basic Answer.” That's because we are about to Fly into the Coaching Zone. So, what do you say? What is so dangerous about this situation? How do you avoid “The Big C” here? What questions do you ask first, and what answers do you give after those questions are answered?

L1s and Judge Candidates, feel free to give your answers immediately. L2s, please wait a day to add your input. L3+, please wait two days.

Edited Joshua Feingold (May 2, 2014 05:06:11 AM)

(Assuming Andy is Ajvar…)

I would answer “that depends on whether you kill it while the trigger is still on the stack”, but from the way this scenario is worded, I guess that's a little too coachy. If I had to be more cryptic I'd just keep it at “that depends on when you kill it”.

Fixed the name. Sorry for any confusion.

Nutella's question assumes the Demon is going to get exiled and I would answer that question. If it happens to jog Nutella's thoughts such that maybe there's another way to do this, I wouldn't consider it Coaching.

“Ajvar owns Desecration Demon so if it gets exiled then it will return to the battlefield under Ajvar's control, just like the reminder text on Banisher Priest explains.”

If the follow-up question is something like “Well what if I kill the Priest before the Demon gets exiled?”, then I'll answer it appropriately. Regardless, I would keep watching the game until the action was completed, to make sure what the players are saying is matching up with what they're doing and the result they're getting.

I agree that stating “If the Desecration Demon gets exiled, it will return to the battlefield under Ajvar's control” is the safest way to answer the question. I might even intentionally add a little emphasis on “IF”. I feel this would manage to answer the question accurately as well as provide the opportunity for someone who is aware of the intricacies of the mechanic to act correctly.

I feel the likely follow up question we're likely to get is “If I kill the Priest immediately does the Demon still get exiled?” but this is clearly not the question that Nutella is asking. If the person doesn't know this and doesn't ask, then clearly their lack of knowledge of the rules has caused them to misplay.

We want to steer clear about any timing related hints. “Are you responding to the trigger?” might coach them into asking about the difference, or reminding them that there is that ability, etc. I don't see much room for a clarifying question here.

The question might be about timing. It might be about who the owner is (He cast it, does that make him the owner?). He might be misremembering the O-Ring trick and there being something different here, but no idea what it is. He might be asking exactly what you think. Hard to tell.

Most players know about our struggles with coaching, and acknowledging that they're “in the know” seems to help for a quick bond. So I'm thinking “My Competitive Non-Coaching answer? Since Desecration Demon came from your deck, you're the owner. When Banisher Priest dies, whatever it exiled will come back on its owner's side of the field. Does that answer your question?”

If he asks what happens if he kills the priest before the exile trigger resolves, I don't see an issue saying “It has a single trigger with a duration. By killing it that early, you're ending the duration before it even starts, so when the triggered ability resolves nothing gets exiled.”

Before reading other responses:

First thing I do is ask about the current board state, especially asking about the trigger of Banisher Priest. For me this sounds like there is Ashiok and Desecration Demon on Nutella's side of the battlefield and the Banisher Priest on Ajvar's side with the trigger on the stack. If i got a conformation from both players the tricky part comes now.

Depending on the moment when Banisher Priest will be killed the outcome of the triggered ability completely changes:

If Banisher Priest dies before the trigger resolves, the Desecration Demon won't be exiled and brought back on Ajvars side, so Nutella is able to keep it
If Banisher Priest dies after the trigger resolves, the Desecration Demon is temporarely exiled and will return to the battlefield on Ajvars side immidiately when Banisher Priest is put into the graveyard

So, assuming the trigger is on the stack, the answer should be “The Desecration Demon wont be exiled and therefore stays on your side of the battlefield.”

If the trigger of Banisher Priest already resovled, the answer would be “If Banisher Priest gets killed, the Desecration Demon will get back on Ajvars side of the battlefield since he is the owner of the card”

I was tempted to ask about if Nutella wants to kill the Banisher Priest before or after the resolution of the trigger but after some consideration that sounds like Coaching to me.

After reading other responses:

Guess i took a completely different approach here since other judges assume the Demon is getting exiled and i'm stepping right into coaching zones. Maybe its my lack of experience but i still think the question about the trigger of the Banisher Priest is necessary to answer the qestion appropiate.


(personal side note: thats an awesome question, really looking forward to the answer because this will help my mindset for answering questions of players a lot)

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (May 2, 2014 10:25:58 AM)

I didn't so much assume that the exile happened, but his question could mean a few things, and the main kind of clarifying question I could think of (responding to the trigger?) could lead him down a line of play he was not going to consider (as evidenced by him implying the trigger resolved).

So I tried answer an interpretation that took everything he said plainly, with an answer complete enough that if he meant something else it would be clear from my answer that we weren't on the same page and left him room for followup.

–

Though, after writing that, I think an initial question of “When are you killing it?” might do the trick. If they say “before the trigger resolves”, a ton of ambiguity disappears, and I didn't coach them about the trigger. If they don't indicate a response to the trigger, then the “it's owner gets it…” answer comes into play.

The answer I'm tempted to give right away is “it will return to the battlefield under its owner's control”. Nutella has asked what would happen when the demon comes back, which presumes that it gets exiled first. While there is a strategically superior play of killing the priest before the trigger resolves, knowing about that line of play is a skill.

That said, Nutella did say that the demon was targeted, but did not say the demon was exiled yet. I would ask Nutella what he believed the current game state is, and what actions he is taking when, and then describe the result of those specific actions.

I assume that Nutella would believe the game state is something like “Banisher Priest's trigger on the stack, I have priority.”. If his action is something like “at eot, I want to kill the priest” or “after the demon is exiled, I kill the priest”, the answer is a straightforward “it returns under it's owners control”. If his action is “Kill the priest before the trigger resolves”, I'd point out that in that case, the demon never gets exiled.

Things get ambiguous if Nutella just states that he will “kill the priest.”. We can't really ask more specific questions without coaching him towards the ‘right’ answer. In that case, I'd go with the couched language other respondents have used - “if the demon comes back from exile, it will return under it's owner's control”

I'm new to this part of judging, so if someone could clarify for me… Am I, as a judge, expected to bend over backwards in order to let a player go ahead and make the bad play he might be about to make? I would feel kind of bad from a customer service perspective if a player came to me to ask about rules and I were to actually go out of my way to answer in a manner that all but ensures a misplay. That would imply that one of the skills in playing Magic is to read when judges are not completely on the level with you, and to phrase your questions in a manner that makes it hard for the judge not to let you catch on to a superior line of play.

tl;dr, how far should I bend over backwards to avoid hinting at other lines of play? Does it matter if those other lines are superior or inferior?

I gratefully accept any offerings of knowledge. :)

The goal is to educate the player without giving them any strategic advice.

I think we want to teach that Banisher Priest's trigger creates a two one-shot effects and how they work. One that exiles the creature when he trigger resolves and one that returns it to the battlefield immediately when Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield. When an object returns to the battlefield this way it always returns under its owner's control unless otherwise specified. Also, perhaps, that the owner of the card is its actual owner.

I would respond “When Banisher Priest's trigger resolves, it creates a one-shot effect that sends the Demon to exile until Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield. As Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield another one-shot effect returns the Demon to the battlefield immediately. If an object is exiled and then returned to the battlefield this way, it always returns under its owner's control regardless of who controlled it before it was exiled.”

I wouldn't mention that the object won't leave the battlefield at all if Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield before its trigger resolves, but I hope the player will ask a follow-up. If the player asks what happens if he kills the Priest before its trigger resolves, I would answer “In that case the effect ends before it begins, and therefore the Demon won't move.”

It seems to me that the exact way in which banisher priest's triggered ability works is not relevant for answering the question asked. Nutella wants to know if the demon comes back under his control or under the control of Ajvar. This only makes sense if the Demon was exiled in the first place, so that is what I'll be assuming when answering the question.

I want to avoid any discussion of the way the trigger of the Banisher Priest works, unless the players explicitly ask about it. It is far too easy to give strategic advice there, which is a big no-no in competitive.

Far more important for me is to make clear how the answer to the question being asked can be worked out. I would probably have a conversation along the following lines:

The owner of a card is the player who had that card in his library at the beginning of the game. Did the Desecration Demon start the game in your library or in the library of Ajvar?“

And after the logical answer: ”Then Ajvar is the owner of the Desecration Demon. Any creatures exiled with Banisher Priest return under their owners control."

My first thought was a “Read that the Banisher Priest. Does this answer your question?” - Does that sound rude?

Edited Philip Böhm (May 3, 2014 12:24:53 PM)

Our problem lies in the fact that the scenario as described is currently
ambiguous. To recap:

"So, I've got this Ashiok, Nightmare
Weaver<http://apps.magicjudges.org/api/autocard/?card=Ashiok%2C+Nightmare+Weaver>,
and I put Desecration
Demon<http://apps.magicjudges.org/api/autocard/?card=Desecration+Demon>
into
play with it last turn. Ajvar just played a Banisher
Priest<http://apps.magicjudges.org/api/autocard/?card=Banisher+Priest>,
and he targeted Desecration Demon with the ability. If I kill the Priest,
does the Demon come back under my control or Ajvar's?“

Prior to the actual question, it sounds like Nutella called us over while
the trigger is on the stack. However, by asking if the Demon ”comes back“,
it now sounds like the trigger has resolved. It sounds like our first job
should be to resolve this ambiguity by asking, ”Has the Desecration Demon
been exiled?“

If Nutella answers yes, we can safely move to the answer: ”It will return
under its owner's control, in this case, Ajvar.“

Nutella might answer, ”No, I want to kill Banisher Priest in response.“ At
this point, the ambiguity is resolved the other way and we can answer, ”If
you kill the Banisher Priest in response, the Desecration Demon is not
exiled and will remain where it is.“

But if Nutella offers a simple no, we can ask, ”Are you doing anything
before the exile?" This should be enough to find out exactly when Nutella
intends to kill the Priest, and we can answer accordingly.

Without first knowing where we are and what is happening, we run the risk
of giving the wrong answer, or trying to cover all bases and coaching
players into the best course of action, even if they weren't aware of it.
Once we clarify these questions, the question that is meant can be answered.

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

My first thought was a “Read that the Banisher Priest. Does this answer your question?” - Does that sound rude?

If Banisher Priest's text made mention of returning the card to it's owner's control, perhaps this would work. However, since it isn't worded that way, I don't think this would be particularly effective in this scenario. Frankly, I'd say that the wording of the card is probably what causes the confusion here.

I like Dominick's answer quite a bit, though I wonder if even asking “Are you doing anything before the exile?” may guide Nutella to realize there's a subtlety she hadn't realized. It's not quite as blatant as “Are you asking about killing the Priest now, or after the effect resolves?” but it isn't far off.